Ensemble Ensemble
Menu
Home
  • SOLUTIONS
  • Method
    • A Systemic Approach
    • Theory of Constraints
    • Working with us
  • RESOURCES
    • Productivity Scorecard
    • Articles
    • Subscribe
    • Our book
  • Results
  • ABOUT
    • The Just Work Manifesto
    • Our Story
    • Location
Book a call
loader

Language

View all articles SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER to get articles and more

STAY CONNECTED AND SIGNUP TO RECEIVE INSIGHT updates

Subscribe

Thinking Tools: Our Top 10 Books

David Hodes, Founder

As a learning organisation, we put great store in books. These are thinking tools, really, by the innovators who have influenced our own approach to creating ‘innovations in productivity’.

Some are classics while others are newer additions to our library. Even the older books—perhaps especially those—contain ideas that are more important than ever.

1_thegoal‘The Goal’ by Eli Goldratt — The book that launched the Theory of Constraints (TOC) takes the form of a novel (written with Jeff Cox) about a manager’s quest to save his manufacturing plant and his marriage. Guided by his former physics teacher—clearly Goldratt’s avatar—Alex Rogo learns how to see the world differently. Thirty years later, the principles are no less powerful. TOC is a beautifully elegant system based on falsifiable hypothesis. It’s the method at the heart of Ensemble’s innovations in resourcing and operations.

The late Goldratt was an iconoclast who could rub people the wrong way. But he also had a sly humour and the chutzpah to follow his own path. His ideas deserve widespread attention. This ‘business novel’ lays them out in a way that seems like common sense. But, as Goldratt himself noted, common sense is so rarely common practice. He adapted the principles from the original production environment to other domains in later books, such as ‘Critical Chain’ which redefines project management.

2_logicalthinking
‘The Logical Thinking Process’ by H. William Dettmer — Subtitled ‘A Systems Approach to Complex Problem Solving’, Bill Dettmer’s book develops Goldratt’s ideas and brings clarity and insight to the key questions: ‘What to change? What to change to? And how to change?’ Not a beach-read by any means, but eye-opening in how to identify and address the real challenges you’re facing. Root causes, effects, undesirable consequences—all reveal themselves through ‘logic trees’ that demand rigour and weed out sloppy thinking.

His Goal Tree is especially useful in workshops. With the whole team in the room, the ‘owners of the system’ collaborate on a shared vision that defines the system’s goal. Structuring sessions using these trees, we’ve had participants insist they’ve made more progress in four hours than the previous four months. Powerful stuff.

3_-fifthdiscipline‘The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization’ by Peter Senge — Talking of shared vision, that’s one of the disciplines highlighted in this seminal work by the celebrated MIT Sloan professor. The others are ‘personal mastery’, ‘mental models’, ‘team learning’, and ‘systems thinking’—the fifth discipline that brings the others together.

If you believe, as we do, that the rate at which innovation flows through an organisation is determined by the rate at which people within the organisation learn, you see that these ideas cut much deeper than the ‘soft’ cultural stuff. They are real disciplines—skills that can be improved with practice—and fundamental to getting new ideas accepted. In our own work, we’ve found Senge’s thinking indispensable in successfully adopting Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints.

4_orgcultureleadership‘Organizational Culture and Leadership’ by Edgar Schein — Another distinguished MIT Sloan professor, now retired, Schein spent years analysing cultures in large organisations, investigating how assumptions, values and artefacts (language, manner of address, clothing, observable behaviour) affect ways of working, particularly in sub-cultures. Would two engineers—say one Japanese, one French—have more in common in their approach to work than an engineer and a doctor who are both Japanese? Schein’s research is fascinating and indicates you can’t impose culture. As he writes, ‘If [leaders] do not become conscious of the cultures in which they are embedded, those cultures will manage them.’

This is why, in our own work, we aim to solve our client’s immediate problem. If the fix works, it will gradually become ‘the way we do things around here’. Schein also came up with the idea of the Anxiety of Learning (‘I don’t want to look foolish or admit I don’t know everything’) versus the Anxiety of Survival (‘I might be fired if I don’t master this’). To achieve results, then, you can ramp up the fear of consequences or decrease the fear of failure. This is one reason our own workshops introduce elements of play and humour to create a safe environment where people can try new things and feel they can fail.

5_requisiteorganization‘Requisite Organization’ by Elliott Jaques — The psychoanalyst who coined the term ‘midlife crisis’ was also a successful management consultant. As a social scientist, Dr Elliott Jaques (pronounced ‘Jakes’) studied hierarchies in organisations and developed the idea of ‘levels of work’, in which tasks should match people’s cognitive ability and ‘timeframe’. So while factory-floor workers may only think about this week’s targets, and their supervisor about this month’s, the manager focuses on the quarter or the year. Presidents (both of companies and countries) should cast their minds and intentions out ten years or more.

Moreover, when your work stretches beyond your cognitive ability, it’s stressful; whereas unchallenging work leads to boredom and disengagement. The sweet spot leads to what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (another favourite) terms a state of ‘flow’. Jaques’s work, which he called Stratifies Systems Theory, has been misrepresented in some circles as a way of keeping people in their place—and justifying high executive pay. In fact, Jaques was a humanist who wanted everyone to be more engaged and rewarded in the workplace. Developing hierarchies that respect people’s capabilities can be more fulfilling for the individual, while saving the organisation from the Peter Principle whereby ‘managers rise to the level of their incompetence’.

6_theoryu‘Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges’ by Otto Scharmer — The third thinker in our MIT triumvirate—and a generation younger than Edgar Schein—Scharmer sees his mission as changing not only the way we work but how society can realise its potential by ‘tapping our collective capacity’ to solve the challenges of our era—climate change, hunger, poverty, violence, terrorism—and set up strong foundations for social, economic, ecological and spiritual wellbeing. As befits that mission, Theory U is not a prescriptive one-man venture, but an invitation to build a community, suspend our judgement and think about how we interact at all levels. The ‘U’ itself represents a journey that starts with listening and observing, goes down to a place of self-reflection and emerges again with the decisiveness and courage to act and change.

I’ve travelled to the US to meet Scharmer and take part in his seminars. His approach has informed our own ‘U Journey’, undertaken with clients on transformation projects. It involves bringing a higher quality of attention and intention to every situation. When you start to recognise the habits of attention present in your own business culture, you can slowly start to change them together and achieve dramatically different outcomes. The book itself is perhaps overloaded with coinages such as ‘presencing’ (a portmanteau of ‘presence’ and ‘sensing’) and ‘field structures of attention’. But given what he’s trying to do, it’s hard to co-opt existing language to express his meaning. Recommended for bold leaders who seek to liberate their teams from politics and truly collaborate on their own future.

7_teamofteams‘Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World’ by General Stanley McChrystal — Military metaphors have long inspired management theory (or infected management jargon, depending on your viewpoint). Markets are ‘arenas’ in which ‘companies capture market share’ or ‘outflank the competition’ to ‘dominate their industry’. One of our own directors is a former special forces officer, so we’ve been known to talk about ‘boots on the ground’, too. Usually, though, these phrases are pasted in without real thought in the hope of making strategy or marketing sound more exciting. So it’s rare when a real general can bring his genuinely battle-tested lessons to the corporate world.

McChrystal commanded the Joint Special Operations Task Force in Iraq in 2003. To take on Al Qaeda, he and his colleagues discarded the conventional wisdom of unconventional warfare. They broke down silos, took best-practice tactics from small teams and applied them to a networked organisation using technology with the power to bring disparate groups together as one ‘team of teams’. Armed (ahem) with this experience, he asks, ‘What if you could combine the adaptability, agility, and cohesion of a small team with the power and resources of a giant organization?’ Applied correctly, his answers could help many a large company change up their battle plans, go on the offensive and defend themselves from insurgent startups (…whoops, there we go again).

8_theinnovators‘The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution’ by Walter Isaacson — Best known for his biographies of Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein and Henry Kissinger, Isaacson takes a different tack here assembling a whole cast of characters to tell the compelling story of the digital revolution.

Going right back to mathematician Ada Lovelace, the poet Lord Byron’s only legitimate child, and her ‘analytical engine’, his narrative reveals how she and Charles Babbage, ‘the father of computers’, kickstarted the revolution that led to Alan Turing and Bletchley Park, Bell Labs, Gates, Wozniak, Jobs, Tim Berners-Lee, Larry Page and beyond. This is a fascinating read, beautifully written, that offers some great insights into how innovation really comes about. Incidentally, Isaacson gave McChrystal a glowing blurb on the ‘Team of Teams’ book jacket.

9_wrightbros‘The Wright Brothers’ by David McCullough — This is another page-turner from the eminence grise of American historians. McCullough brings the two brothers to life: Wilbur, the visionary genius and Orville, the mechanical savant. He vividly renders their epic adventure to send heavier-than-air machines into the skies; you can sense their excitement and frustration at every turn. It all happened just over a century ago, when it was still common enough to grow up without electricity or running water, as they did. But they had books and parents who instilled in them a lifelong love of learning.

Among many other interesting facts, we learn that the only media to report on the first powered flight at Kitty Hawk was a beekeeper’s journal, as no other newsmen took the brothers seriously. After all, the US Government had its best people on the same problem. And they couldn’t make it work. How could two bicycle mechanics from Dayton, Ohio, succeed? Even when the Government was offered first dibs on this new technology, they turned it down. They simply didn’t believe that something heavier than air could fly under its own power. Only once the French had spent money with these pioneering aviators did the US wake up to the enormity of this new possibility. And the Wright boys did it all on a shoestring budget using their own money. The book is also a paean to brotherhood, self-belief and the need for collaboration, even in a team of only two. For anyone seeking to make a difference in the world—often fighting against an indifferent world—this is inspiring stuff.

10_innovatorsdilemma‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’ by Clayton Christensen — The author is responsible for unleashing the phrase ‘disruptive innovation’ into thousands of academic articles, MBA theses and business books. (And, yes, we use the term ourselves.) It all started with an article in the Harvard Business Review about ‘disruptive technologies’ before being expanded into this blockbuster business book in 1997 (actually ‘disruptive innovation’ appeared only with the sequel, ‘The Innovator’s Solution’).

The dilemma itself is essentially how successful companies fall victim to their own success. They start with an innovation that leads to a large customer base. Eventually, value creation hits diminishing returns, while the next innovation is not yet mature enough for the demands of existing customers. The original innovator fails to invest enough resources in the new approach, while the new kids on the block (often started by frustrated employees of the original company) find their niche before expanding to steal the original customer base. How to pivot your resources, or judge which projects in your portfolio deserve more attention? That’s something Ensemble can help with.

___

Next on my own list is Christensen’s latest, ‘Competing Against Luck: the Story of Innovation and Customer Choice’. I hope you find stimulation and enjoyment in some of these books, as we have at Ensemble. Of course, there are many more. But this is what I consider our core collection. I’d be delighted to hear about books that have changed the way you think.

We have multiple copies of all these books in our own library and you’re welcome to borrow them. Why not drop by for a coffee and a chat and pick up a title or two?

  • Culture
  • Operations
  • Process
  • Strategy

The healthcare professional: the hidden constraint in patient flow

Ensemble Administrator

Healthcare professionals are central to the patient’s progress from awareness of a therapy to successful long-term use. They identify risk, interpret evidence, diagnose conditions, discuss options, perform procedures, provide training and monitor outcomes.

Yet many medical device development programs treat healthcare professionals primarily as users to be trained or customers to be persuaded.

HCP-Centered Design takes a wider view. It examines the work healthcare professionals must perform, the system in which they perform it and the constraints that limit their ability to move suitable patients through the care pathway.

“If patient flow depends on a healthcare professional, that professional’s available capacity may determine how many patients ultimately receive the therapy.”

Healthcare professionals govern critical transitions

A medical device patient journey commonly depends on several healthcare professionals:

  • A primary care professional recognizes a problem or makes a referral.
  • A specialist assesses the patient and manages the disease pathway.
  • Diagnostic professionals generate and interpret evidence.
  • A managing physician supports authorization or reimbursement.
  • An interventional specialist confirms eligibility and performs a procedure.
  • Nurses, educators or allied health professionals help the patient adapt.
  • Follow-up teams monitor efficacy and coordinate adjustments.

Each professional governs a transition in the flow of patients.

If one transition lacks sufficient capacity, information or clarity, the whole pathway slows. More marketing, sales activity or production capacity will not compensate for a shortage of specialist time or a burdensome diagnostic process.

This is why HCP-Centered Design is not simply about making an interface easier to use. It is about enabling the system of care to perform.

The HCP works within a system

A healthcare professional’s work depends on information and actions supplied by others. They may rely on referrals, patient histories, pathology, imaging, electronic records, clinical guidelines and the availability of equipment or trained colleagues.

After reaching a decision, they may need to explain it, document it, arrange authorization, coordinate treatment and prepare the next person in the pathway.

A technically strong solution can still create difficulty if it:

  • Requires information that is hard to obtain
  • Interrupts established clinical workflows
  • Produces outputs that are difficult to interpret
  • Adds documentation without removing other work
  • Fails to connect with existing systems
  • Demands training that cannot be sustained
  • Transfers work or risk to another professional
  • Provides a result without clarifying the next action

The relevant design question is not merely, “Can the HCP use this product?”

It is, “Does this solution improve the HCP’s ability to complete important clinical work within the conditions in which care is actually delivered?”

Identify the real healthcare professional personas

“HCP” is not one persona.

A general practitioner, specialist, interventional physician, nurse, technician and clinical administrator encounter different stages of the pathway. Each has different responsibilities, authority, expertise and exposure to risk.

Even within a profession, context matters. An experienced specialist in a major hospital may approach the same task differently from a professional who encounters the condition infrequently or works without immediate specialist support.

Useful HCP personas distinguish factors that influence work:

  • Clinical responsibility and decision authority
  • Frequency of encountering the condition
  • Experience with the procedure or technology
  • Access to information and specialist support
  • Available time
  • Confidence in interpreting results
  • Responsibility for follow-up
  • Exposure to clinical, legal or financial risk

These personas clarify who performs each job and what support each person requires.

Map the HCP journey

The HCP journey often begins before the visible clinical procedure.

It may include receiving a referral, gathering information, forming an initial view, ordering investigations, interpreting results, deciding whether the patient is eligible, discussing treatment, obtaining authorization, preparing for the procedure, delivering care and arranging follow-up.

At each stage, ask:

  • What is the HCP trying to accomplish?
  • What information is required?
  • Where does the information come from?
  • What decision must be made?
  • What could cause delay or rework?
  • Who depends on this action?
  • What must happen before the patient can progress?

The resulting journey map should distinguish processing time from waiting time. A decision may require only minutes of specialist attention while patients wait weeks to access that attention.

This reveals the practical relationship between HCP capacity and patient flow.

Find the HCP constraint

The Theory of Constraints directs attention to the factor limiting the performance of the entire system.

In some pathways, the constraint may be the number of qualified interventional specialists. In others, it may be diagnostic capacity, physician confidence, authorization effort, operating room access or the time required to train patients.

The constraint may also be hidden inside the HCP’s working day.

A specialist supporting a therapy must still manage other clinical duties, administration, meetings, documentation and urgent cases. The question is not simply how many specialists exist. It is how much of their usable capacity is available for the activities upon which patient flow depends.

“The scarcest resource may not be the healthcare professional. It may be the few hours of focused capacity available for the critical work.”

Improvement away from this constraint can make performance worse. Sending more referrals to an already overloaded specialist increases the queue. Adding information may increase cognitive burden. Creating another approval may consume the capacity required to treat patients.

HCP-Centered Design seeks to protect and expand the capacity that governs flow.

Go to the clinical Gemba

Policies and procedures describe how clinical work should happen. Observation reveals how it actually happens.

Healthcare professionals routinely compensate for missing information, awkward interfaces and unreliable handovers. These workarounds may become so familiar that nobody reports them as problems.

Gemba research should examine:

  • How the HCP prepares
  • Which tools and information sources are used
  • What interrupts the work
  • Where the HCP waits or repeats activity
  • How uncertainty is communicated
  • What must be documented
  • How work passes to the next person
  • How the HCP recognizes that the job is complete

The purpose is not to judge the healthcare professional. It is to understand the system surrounding the work.

“A workaround is often evidence that the system has failed to support the person doing the work.”

Define the HCP’s job to be done

Healthcare professionals do not simply use devices. They use them to make progress in clinical work.

An HCP may need to identify risk, reach a confident diagnosis, select an intervention, perform a procedure safely, explain options, monitor progress or recognize deterioration.

A structured job map divides this work into eight stages:

  1. Define the intended clinical outcome.
  2. Locate the necessary information and resources.
  3. Prepare the patient, equipment and environment.
  4. Confirm readiness and choose between alternatives.
  5. Execute the clinical activity.
  6. Monitor its progress and results.
  7. Modify the approach when circumstances change.
  8. Conclude, document and prepare for subsequent care.

This wider view prevents the product team from concentrating exclusively on the procedure.

The greatest value may come from reducing preparation, improving decision confidence, clarifying an exception, simplifying documentation or improving the handover to follow-up care.

Convert experience into measurable outcomes

Comments such as “the interface is difficult” or “we need better information” indicate dissatisfaction, but do not provide sufficient direction for design.

They should be translated into measurable outcome statements, such as:

“Minimize the time required to identify which clinical information is missing before making a treatment decision.”

Or:

“Reduce the likelihood that a clinically significant change goes unrecognized between scheduled reviews.”

A broader population of healthcare professionals can then assess the importance of each outcome and their satisfaction with their current ability to achieve it.

Highly important and poorly satisfied outcomes provide a rational basis for prioritizing innovation.

“Adoption follows when a solution makes important clinical work safer, clearer or easier to complete.”

Apply FOCUS to HCP capacity

The five-step FOCUS process creates a practical improvement cycle.

Find the constraint. Determine which HCP activity or resource currently limits patient flow.

Optimise for it. Protect the constraint from avoidable work, missing information, interruptions and rework.

Collaborate around it. Align upstream and downstream teams so patients, information and resources arrive when required.

Uplift it. Add capacity, redesign responsibilities, improve technology or remove restrictive policies.

Start Again. Identify the new constraint once flow improves.

This approach allows the organization to distinguish activity from value. It also turns HCP engagement into an ongoing management discipline.

Connect HCP evidence with enterprise execution

HCP-Centered Design must connect clinical reality with patient needs, technology, regulation and business strategy.

A Value Management Office can help coordinate these perspectives across the product lifecycle. Its role is to ensure that projects, resources and stage-gate decisions remain connected to patient flow and business value.

The organization should be able to show:

  • Which HCP groups influence the pathway
  • What each group is trying to accomplish
  • How the work happens in practice
  • Which outcomes remain poorly served
  • Where HCP capacity constrains patient flow
  • How the proposed solution changes the wider care system
  • How improvement will be measured

The goal is not simply a device that healthcare professionals can operate. It is a solution they can confidently incorporate into care and a delivery system capable of getting that solution to more patients.


What’s next?

Use the HCP-Centered Design assessment to determine how well your organization understands clinical work, HCP capacity and the constraints governing patient flow.

The resulting evidence should guide product design, process improvement and investment toward better products, delivered faster, with more lives changed for good.

READ MORE

  • Operations
  • People
  • Process
  • Strategy

Patient flow: the missing system in Patient Centered Design

Ensemble Administrator

Medical device companies devote enormous skill and investment to developing safe, effective products. Yet a technically successful device changes no lives while suitable patients remain unable to reach it.

Between a patient becoming aware of a therapy and receiving its intended benefit lies a pathway of referrals, consultations, diagnostics, approvals, procedures, training and follow-up. Every step consumes time. Between the steps, patients wait. At some points, they become confused, discouraged, ineligible or lost to the process.

Patient Centered Design must therefore address more than the design of the device. It must improve the performance of the entire system through which patients reach, receive and live successfully with the solution.

“A life-changing therapy changes no lives while patients remain trapped in the pathway leading to it.”

The patient journey is a flow system

A typical medical device journey may include:

  1. The patient becomes aware of a possible therapy.
  2. A primary care professional or specialist assesses the patient.
  3. Diagnostic work determines whether the therapy is appropriate.
  4. The patient secures authorization or reimbursement.
  5. An interventional specialist confirms and plans the procedure.
  6. The patient receives the device or therapy.
  7. The patient learns how to live with the solution.
  8. Follow-up identifies any necessary adjustments.
  9. Periodic reviews monitor longer-term efficacy.

Companies often manage these stages as separate functions. Marketing works on awareness. Medical affairs supports clinicians. Market access addresses reimbursement. Sales works with specialists. Clinical teams gather evidence. Training teams support adoption.

The patient, however, experiences one journey.

From the patient’s perspective, a delay between two organizational functions remains a delay. A repeated test remains repeated work. An unclear handover creates uncertainty regardless of which department owns it.

Patient Centered Design begins when the organization sees and manages this journey as a connected system.

Processing time tells only part of the story

Every step contains some necessary processing time. A consultation takes time. A diagnostic test takes time. An authorization must be assessed. A procedure must be performed.

The patient’s total lead time, however, also includes the waiting between these activities.

A consultation may take 30 minutes, but the patient could wait six weeks for it. A diagnostic test may take an hour, followed by another delay before a specialist reviews the result. Prior authorization may require little actual work while adding weeks to the pathway.

This distinction matters because organizations often improve processing time while leaving the larger queues untouched. Saving five minutes during an appointment produces little benefit if the patient waits months to reach it.

Patient Centered Design therefore asks:

  • How long does each activity take?
  • How long do patients wait between activities?
  • How many suitable patients enter each stage?
  • How many progress to the next stage?
  • Where and why do patients leave the pathway?
  • How much total time passes before the patient receives the solution?

The answers reveal the true performance of the patient system.

Find the constraint

Theory of Constraints teaches that the performance of any system is limited by a constraint. Improving a part of the system that is not constraining flow may create more activity without increasing results.

If diagnostic capacity is the constraint, generating more awareness may simply produce a longer queue for diagnosis. If specialist capacity is the constraint, accelerating authorization may move patients more quickly into another wait. If training after first use is inadequate, increasing procedures may produce poor experiences and avoidable follow-up demand.

“More activity at a non-constraint creates work in process. More capability at the constraint improves the system.”

The constraint is not always a physical resource. It may be a policy, an eligibility rule, missing evidence, a fragmented handover, an information delay or the cognitive burden placed on the patient.

The most important question is therefore not, “How do we improve every step?”

It is, “What currently limits the flow of suitable patients to successful use of the therapy?”

Understand why patients remain in or leave the flow

Numbers show where patients are lost. Patient research helps explain why.

Two patients with the same diagnosis may respond very differently. One may actively seek new treatment options. Another may delay action until symptoms become severe. A third may want help but lack confidence in navigating the healthcare system.

Meaningful patient segmentation considers characteristics that influence behavior:

  • The importance the person gives their health
  • Their confidence in dealing with healthcare professionals
  • Whether they act independently or need encouragement
  • Their comfort with technology
  • The pressures of work, family and daily life
  • Their ability to understand and act on clinical information
  • Their willingness and ability to pay
  • The outcomes they most want to achieve

These differences affect whether patients enter the pathway, remain engaged and successfully adopt the solution.

Go to the patient’s Gemba

The Gemba is the place where work actually happens. For patients, this includes the home, clinic, hospital and all the places where they manage their condition between formal encounters.

Interviews alone may miss important evidence. People normalize inconvenience, forget workarounds and simplify their past decisions. Observation allows the development team to see what patients actually do.

Good research combines three activities.

Observe. Watch how patients obtain information, prepare, use the solution and respond when something goes wrong.

Immerse. Understand the physical, emotional and practical conditions surrounding the experience.

Engage. Ask open questions that allow patients to describe their goals, fears and frustrations in their own language.

The purpose is to discover the patient’s reality before asking them to evaluate the organization’s preferred answer.

Understand the patient’s job to be done

Patients rarely want a medical device for its own sake. They want the progress it may enable.

They may want to recognize deterioration earlier, preserve independence, reduce pain, avoid repeated visits, return to work or prevent a disease from controlling daily life.

A useful job map examines eight recurring stages:

  1. Define what must be achieved.
  2. Locate the required information and resources.
  3. Prepare for the activity.
  4. Confirm readiness and choose between alternatives.
  5. Execute the activity.
  6. Monitor whether it is working.
  7. Modify the approach when circumstances change.
  8. Conclude or prepare for what follows.

This reveals opportunities beyond the immediate use of the device. The most valuable improvement may involve helping patients prepare, confirm readiness, recognize an exception or understand what happens next.

Turn patient experiences into evidence

Stories create understanding, but investment decisions require structured evidence.

Patient observations and comments should be converted into outcome statements that identify:

  • The desired direction of improvement
  • A measure of success
  • The object being controlled
  • The circumstances in which it matters

For example:

“Minimize the time required to recognize that my condition has changed sufficiently to require clinical help.”

Patients can then assess the importance of each outcome and their satisfaction with their current ability to achieve it.

Highly important and poorly satisfied outcomes represent genuine opportunities. This prevents teams from prioritizing attractive features that do not materially improve the patient’s life or progress through the pathway.

“Innovation becomes valuable when it improves an outcome that matters and remains poorly served.”

Apply the five-step FOCUS process

The Patient Centered Design pathway can be improved through a repeating discipline:

Find the constraint. Identify what currently limits patient flow or successful use.

Optimise for it. Make the best possible use of existing constraint capacity.

Collaborate around it. Align functions and partners so their actions support the constraint.

Uplift it. Add capability, remove restrictive policies or redesign the pathway.

Start Again. Once the constraint moves, identify and address the next limiting factor.

This prevents improvement from becoming a collection of disconnected initiatives. It directs scarce resources toward the factor that most strongly governs the result.

Patient Centered Design is an operating system

Patient insight should influence more than early product design. It should shape clinical evidence, regulatory strategy, reimbursement, manufacturing, education, market development and post-market support.

The organization should be able to show:

  • Which patients it intends to serve
  • What those patients are trying to accomplish
  • How the complete patient pathway operates
  • Where patients wait or leave the flow
  • Which outcomes remain poorly served
  • What currently constrains successful patient access
  • How the proposed solution improves the whole system

The goal is not simply to place the patient at the center of a diagram. It is to organize the enterprise around delivering better products faster, so that more lives can be changed for good.


What’s next?

Use the Patient Centered Design assessment to determine how well your organization understands its patient journeys, priority outcomes and constraints to patient flow.

The result should be more than another collection of patient opinions. It should provide evidence that directs strategy, investment and execution toward the changes that matter most.

READ MORE

More than just work

Discover better ways to do better work.

Fresh insights, every Friday

We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.

We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    Subscribe to 'Perspectives'

    [recaptcha id:cf7note]

    More Than Just Work
    Weekly productivity insights

    Subscribe
    • EnsembleConsultingGroup
    • Share Page
    • +61 2 9387 3955
    • info@EnsembleConsultingGroup.com

    Site proudly designed by Brand Fibre

    What is to get in touch with you?



    More than just work

    Discover better ways to do better work.

    Fresh insights, every Friday

    We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.


    We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    white_arrow white_bidirection_arrow arrow-right-green arrow-right-orange arrow-right arrow-left blue_arrow blue_round_arrow tick

    Want us to get in touch with you?

     
    Thank you for your interest. We will call you back.